2026-09-23 - Zoning Board of Appeals

05:05everyone to the September 23rd, 2026

05:08zoning board of appeals meeting. I'm

05:10Candace Brier, chairperson of the zoning

05:11board of appeals. The zoning board of

05:14appeals is a nine-person volunteer board

05:16nominated by the mayor and approved by

05:18city council. First, we will hear from

05:19planning services represented tonight by

05:21John Barrett and Eric Perdonic. Then,

05:24the applicant or their representative

05:25will make their presentation. Applicants

05:27will have 5 minutes in which to make

05:29their presentation. Staff will keep time

05:31and will announce when 30 seconds are

05:33remaining. Public comment is available

05:35in person or remotely. First, we will

05:38call on individuals present to address

05:40the board, then remote participants.

05:43[snorts]

05:44To speak during a public hearing or

05:45during public comment remotely, press

05:47star9 if listening by phone or use the

05:50raised hand feature if viewing through

05:51the web link. For phone access, call

05:54877853-5247

05:59and enter meeting ID 9381648107.

06:06City staff will select callers that have

06:08raised their hand using the last three

06:10digits of your phone number or by name

06:12if available for those accessing through

06:13the web link. You will hear an automated

06:16announcement that the host is allowing

06:17you to speak. When speaking, please move

06:19to a quiet area and mute any television

06:21or background sounds. We may ask

06:24questions of either the city or the

06:25applicant. We will acknowledge any

06:27written comments received by the board.

06:29We will allow an appearing party to

06:31express their support or objections. The

06:34board will then discuss the appeal and

06:35formulate a motion to approve that

06:37appeal. Five affirmative votes of the

06:39board will be required for an appeal to

06:41be granted. Finally, any qualified party

06:43who is agrieved by decision of the board

06:45can appeal that decision to the county

06:47circuit court on a timely basis.

06:51Roll call.

06:54Candace Brier, I am here. Dharma Aman

06:59>> here.

07:00>> Mike Daniel

07:01>> here. Drew Densen

07:03>> here.

07:04>> Christina Glue

07:05>> here. Patty Lascowski

07:08>> here. [clears throat]

07:09Robera Sutton

07:10>> here. Julie Weatherbe

07:12>> here.

07:13>> We are all in attendance today. Approval

07:16of the minutes. Oh no, sorry. I skipped

07:19approval of the agenda. Are there any

07:21comments or concerns about the agenda?

07:23Do I have a motion to approve the

07:24agenda? Motion from Mike. Support from

07:28everybody. All right. All in favor say

07:30I.

07:30>> I. opposed. All right, moving on to

07:33approval of the minutes.

07:36Um, we have minutes from the zoning

07:38board of appeals meeting on July 22nd,

07:422026. Are there any questions, comments,

07:44corrections on those minutes?

07:47Do a motion to approve the minutes.

07:49>> Motion to approve.

07:50>> Thank you. Support, Julie. All in favor

07:53say I.

07:54>> I.

07:54>> Opposed? All right. Moving on to public

07:58hearings. So, our first public hearing

07:59tonight is petition ZBA26-000012

08:04500 Highland Road. Eric.

08:07>> Okay. Uh, Eric Pradan, zoning

08:10coordinator, City of Ann Arbor. Uh,

08:12start with a little introduction for the

08:14case. So, the approximately 0.4 acre

08:17subject property is zoned R1B single

08:20family residential

08:22and is a corner lot located at the

08:24northwest intersection of Gettys Avenue

08:26and Highland Road.

08:28The applicant is requesting a 37.833

08:31foot variance from section 5.17.3

08:36table 5.17-1

08:38of the unified development code to

08:40permit a 94.46q 46 ft two-story building

08:45addition to the rear of an existing

08:471,966

08:48ft single family dwelling to have a

08:512.167

08:53ft rear setback where 40 ft is the

08:55minimum setback required. The subject

08:58addition would expand the existing

09:00onecar garage and create a new covered

09:03entry and mudroom on the first floor at

09:05approximately 504.46 46 ft as well as a

09:08new attic and office on the second floor

09:10at approximately 400 square f feet. I

09:13will now go through a few slides for

09:15additional context.

09:19Uh here is the zoning map indicating the

09:21zoning of the subject property as well

09:24as the surrounding property.

09:27Zoomed out aerial showing the subject

09:29property and surrounding properties.

09:32Zoomed in aerial of the subject

09:35property.

09:37Here we have a boundary survey of the

09:39subject property.

09:43Uh we have both an existing and a

09:45proposed site plan for the project.

09:50Uh and then we have a little bit of an

09:52overlay on those existing and proposed

09:54site plans to show uh kind of what would

09:57be within the required setback areas.

10:02Uh here we have a first floor plan.

10:07Uh the existing first floor plan.

10:10Then we have the proposed first floor

10:13plan.

10:16Uh existing second floor plan

10:20and proposed second floor plan. You can

10:24see the addition of the office space

10:27there. Uh then we have the proposed east

10:31elevation.

10:34Uh then we have the north elevation

10:37proposed,

10:40the west elevation proposed,

10:45and the south elevation proposed.

10:48Uh we have a few other photos and things

10:50here, but I'll leave it to the applicant

10:52if they want to pull any of these up.

10:54That's uh all I have by way of

10:56introduction.

10:58>> Thank you, Eric. Questions for staff.

11:04>> All right. If the petitioner's here, if

11:05you could please come.

11:06>> Sorry. I actually have a quick question.

11:07>> Oh, yeah. Go ahead.

11:08>> Um, so can you go back to the proposed

11:11with the with the setback variance

11:14>> the uh the overlay? Yeah. And so, so

11:18just to make sure I understand, so most

11:20of the, so the existing garage is and

11:23house is already in the setback. Um, so

11:27most of the variance would actually be

11:28for pieces that are like for the pieces

11:30that are farther forward.

11:31>> Well, we have to differentiate the

11:33garage because it's currently detached.

11:35>> Okay.

11:35>> And therefore subject to a lesser

11:37setback than the principal building.

11:40>> But once it's attached, it's then

11:41>> once it's attached, it becomes subject

11:43to the same setback as the the principal

11:45building. And yeah, there are a number

11:47of um areas on the rear of the house

11:49that are already non-conforming to the

11:51setback. Um however, the additions in

11:55those respects don't extend past what

11:57was already the non-conforming setback

11:59and therefore don't require a variance.

12:01It's just this one kind of piece here

12:03that extends almost all the way to the

12:05lot line that you see there, the one

12:07that's

12:07>> okay

12:07>> kind of dark shaded that is just short

12:10of the the rear lot line next to the

12:12garage.

12:12>> Okay. Okay. So, anything built on top in

12:14the existing setback would be on top of

12:17an existing structure would be okay.

12:18>> Yes, that would not require variance.

12:20>> Okay. Thank you.

12:23>> Any other questions for Eric?

12:25>> All right. For the petitioners here, if

12:27you could come forward, please sign in

12:29and state your name for the record.

12:30You'll have five minutes.

12:35>> Michael Clement, principal of

12:37architectural resource. Do we sign in?

12:40>> Yeah, please.

12:45Alex Jackson, also with architectural

12:48resource.

12:51>> Emily Swaffford, I'm one of the

12:53homeowners.

12:56>> Colin Kennedy, I'm the other homeowner.

13:04>> Were you looking to utilize your own

13:06presentation this evening on the

13:08>> uh We do have some additional materials

13:10if we need them. Yeah, we could plug in.

13:16So, today um as mentioned, roughly half

13:20of Colin and Emily's house and the

13:22entire detached garage and driveway sit

13:25inside the designated 40, uh foot rear

13:28setback of their property. This presents

13:31several practical difficulties to their

13:33goal of providing covered parking for

13:35two cars as well as a covered step-free

13:38path from their cars to their house.

13:41These difficulties are not self-imposed

13:43and existed prior to the owner's

13:44purchase of the home. Uh the homeowners

13:48really love their neighborhood and want

13:49to preserve the uh residential fabric of

13:52their neighborhood and the unique

13:54character of their home, which is a big

13:55part of why we're seeking a variance

13:57today.

13:58The proposed design helps protect the

14:00long-standing residential fabric of

14:02their neighborhood and the efficient use

14:04of land and infrastructure consistent

14:06with the principles and sustainable land

14:08use practices as outlined in the city's

14:10unified development code.

14:13Um the existing detached onecar uh

14:17garage is currently roughly 2 feet from

14:20the rear property line and our proposal

14:23is to simply extend the plane of that

14:25wall uh along to ex to uh generate a

14:30twocar tandem garage. So as mentioned

14:33this would be um less intruding than the

14:37existing condition.

14:40Uh we then proposed to add a mudroom

14:42connecting the house to the garage uh

14:45with a bedroom above. The new garage

14:47wall would start 2 ft 2 in from the rear

14:50property line uh slightly further from

14:52the property line than the garage is

14:54today. It would also include 1hour fire

14:57rating assemblies on both sides because

14:59it is closer than 5 ft to the property

15:01line. and it would provide a step-free

15:04path from car to house that would be

15:07covered uh which the property does not

15:10currently have which would improve

15:11safety and accessibility.

15:13Uh so the request is for a 37 foot 10-in

15:16variance from the 40ft setback.

15:20The house was designed by Wells Bennett

15:22who is the dean of the University of

15:24Michigan College of Architecture from

15:261937 to 1957 and was his own home and

15:30studio. And one of the most

15:32distinguishing features of the home is a

15:34large uh bay window towards the south uh

15:38which is in the buildable area of the

15:40lot.

15:41So just a few of the highlights of what

15:44makes this lot different and

15:45exceptional. Um, you could see from the

15:48images that it's basically a wedge. So,

15:50there's 172 ft and it it tapers to

15:54essentially a point along Gettys. So,

15:57there's a long um

16:00there's this a 5ft sideyard set back to

16:04the west, but then the rear yard to the

16:06north is what's creating the difficulty.

16:10Uh, three of the largest trees on the

16:13property are lo also located to the

16:15south of the home. Uh, so if there was a

16:17garage or any kind of building to the

16:20south, those landmark trees that are 22

16:23and 24 in diameter p u pines, three of

16:27the biggest trees on the site would have

16:28to be removed. In addition, there's

16:31quite a slope um from the south side of

16:35the property down to the kind of open

16:37field area. U maybe you could um flip

16:41over to some of the sites views from the

16:44south, but it falls off quite quite a

16:47bit in that burm looking north.

16:50>> Yeah, perfect. Yep. South looking north.

16:53So there's about 8 ft of fall from the

16:55house down to where a new garage

16:58connector would need to be made if it

17:00was added on that side. So, it would

17:02require a very steep uh garage about 16%

17:07slope and would create a lot of

17:10additional runoff into that southern

17:12field area um if it was added on that

17:16side. Uh this field is also a low point

17:19of the property and Colin and Emily have

17:21been adding rain gardens and nating

17:23native plantings to try to reduce

17:26flooding that sometimes comes even over

17:28the sidewalk. So they're really trying

17:30to stay out of that area to avoid

17:33increasing any additional runoff or

17:36storm water management.

17:42So uh section 5.1.2b

17:46says the R1 districts are intended to

17:48encourage the preservation and

17:49continuation of the long-standing

17:51residential fabric in existing neighbor

17:53neighborhoods. The open park-like

17:56setting towards the south uh is an

18:00important defi a character defining

18:02feature of this neighborhood. It's a

18:04nice open field with native plantings.

18:07It has the view of the home which is

18:10most um distinguished of the local

18:13architect um from the school who was the

18:16dean of the school of Michigan and it is

18:19serving as a storm water retention area

18:22currently. So the proposed design helps

18:25keep those utilities in place and

18:29respects the intent of the building

18:31code.

18:33Uh it also provides adequate open space

18:36and supports the efficient use of land

18:37and infrastructure whereas building to

18:40the south would um reduce the open

18:44space.

18:46And the proposal encourages

18:49um the promotion and pres preservation

18:52of the existing significant vegetation.

18:58Uh the homeowners have also collected

18:59several letters of support including

19:01from their neighbor directly to the

19:02north who would be most impacted by the

19:04property.

19:09Right.

19:09>> Thank you. Are there any questions for

19:11the petitioners?

19:17All right. If there Oh, yeah, sir.

19:20>> Hi. Uh, what I mean, did you look at any

19:23other alternatives to that are I guess

19:26less non-conforming, right?

19:28>> Yes, we did. That's that's some of the

19:30addendum materials. So, we have a flash

19:33drive.

19:35Um,

19:38so we did look at some studies building

19:40within the buildable area of the home.

19:44and it highlights some of the issues

19:46that we just spoke to. So,

19:59>> thanks.

19:59>> Do you guys see the

20:01>> Yeah, it doesn't seem to be showing up

20:03in the

20:05>> device list.

20:07>> And Michael's handing them out here.

20:09>> See if we can uh trouble. We did

20:11essentially some um massing studies of

20:14how a twocar garage could be located in

20:17the southern buildable part of the home.

20:20>> And

20:22in order to to accommodate that,

20:27there's several kind of fallouts from

20:29that approach that we feel really go

20:31against the intention of the unified

20:34development code.

20:37So specifically relating to maintaining

20:39the quality of the neighborhood and the

20:41characteristic of the residential

20:42fabric,

20:44storm water runoff and the land marked

20:47trees. So you can see in the handout the

20:50first page there is um

20:54some information about

20:58the setbacks and kind of how we could

21:01see the massing potentially working on

21:03the site for the same program.

21:06Um, and then as you go to the second

21:09page,

21:12>> uh, it's just the flash drive. I got

21:14this. This is all set to go.

21:16>> This is too maybe this one.

21:28>> It It does appear to be showing up now.

21:30The

21:31>> Oh, good. The D there. Yep.

21:40Perfect. Okay.

21:43So, you can see these these dark uh

21:46rectangles. So, this is an alternate

21:48arrangement where a twocar garage and a

21:50mudroom area is being added to the south

21:53within the buildable area. And then

21:55there's a large uh grade um fill off to

22:00the right of the page which would be a

22:01new driveway area. And what that would

22:05require is first abandoning the use of

22:07their existing garage basically. So kind

22:10of letting that whole piece go and then

22:12building quite a substantial structure

22:14on the most distinctive part of the site

22:17in terms of the architecture and the

22:19open space. And then as you continue to

22:23look um onto the second page here,

22:27there's four

22:29bold green circles. Those are four large

22:33trees on the site that are all

22:35considered landmark trees. They're over

22:3818inch diameter pines that would need to

22:40be removed in order to accommodate the

22:42fill and the construction of a garage

22:46and driveway in [clears throat] this

22:47area.

22:49and it would add about,00

22:52square feet of impervis

22:55that would not be required under our

22:57proposal.

23:02And then as we go on, so these are just

23:04to give you a sense of how uh important

23:07and significant those trees are in the

23:08site. We've just put X's over. These are

23:10the trees that would need to be removed

23:12if we built in the compliant location.

23:17And then here is a picture of the rain

23:19garden which would be impacted uh that

23:22Colin and Emily have developed. And then

23:25just some very quick kind of blocking

23:26studies. Also why this is not a great

23:29solution just from a layout and

23:30architecture perspective. They'd be

23:33moving the garage completely on the

23:34opposite side of the house away from the

23:36existing condition. So you'd have to

23:38walk through the garage through a new

23:41mudroom. their bedroom space would get

23:43shorter and it'd be uh quite just

23:45functionally

23:47not as desirable.

23:50And then up on the second floor as well,

23:52there'd be quite a a large amount of

23:54circulation space that would be required

23:56and doesn't uh take advantage of the

24:00layout of the current home or working

24:02with those resources. And then this is

24:04that massing put onto the site as the

24:07grade is right now. So you can get a

24:09sense of how steeply it falls off to the

24:11south. And then something like the

24:14grading would have to be adjusted to

24:16bring it up, which would really change

24:18the whole nature of that site. It's kind

24:19of an open park-like

24:22um designation for them.

24:35That's all. Thank you. I I appreciate

24:37you laying all that out. It's um I guess

24:41on the non on the proposed addition as

24:45you have it.

24:47Um I guess I wondering like why does it

24:49have to be a twostory edition? Did you

24:52look at other smaller additions to the

24:54house? Isn't that in the setback?

24:59what your the additions

25:01>> we're we're essentially so if we think

25:03about it as floors for the first floor

25:06it it needs to be that length just to

25:08accommodate two cars

25:09>> yeah garage but why does it have to be

25:11is it it's a twotory addition of the

25:13house right

25:14>> yes exactly so I've just kind of taken

25:15it piece by piece so on the first floor

25:17it's kind of just setting set by the

25:19dimensions needed to uh cover two cars

25:22and then protect it to the house and

25:24then our thinking is on the second floor

25:26there was a desire also for a new

25:28bedroom so why not use that new space

25:30that we're already building and build up

25:32so that it's a efficient use of of land

25:35development.

25:37>> Right. I mean, I get wanting to have

25:38more space, but that there's nothing

25:40unique about the land layer where you'd

25:42have to have a second story to make the

25:46addition work. Right.

25:50>> The second story is is just addressing

25:52the client's desire for um more living

25:54space. Gotcha. And we're just stacking

25:56it on top of the new Uh part of the

25:59interest was there's already build form

26:02in that setback area. So rather than

26:06going to another direction, we would

26:07just simply stay in the area extended

26:11forward at the same angle of direction

26:13and then building up it.

26:16>> Okay,

26:16>> that was the design concept.

26:18>> Gotcha. All right. Thank you.

26:20>> You bet.

26:21>> I have I have another question. Yeah.

26:23you um you highlighted the um the UDC

26:27intentions around reducing the negative

26:30impact of storm water runoff. And I

26:32guess I'm curious with building so much

26:34on the north side where that runoff is

26:36coming from how that impacts the the

26:39flow with all that additional building

26:40on the north side of the property

26:43>> that um there's already impervious area

26:46there that's a driveway. So it wouldn't

26:48really be changing it that much.

26:50>> Thanks.

26:50>> Going to the south whole new story.

26:53Thank you.

26:54>> Yeah, the driveway it ch uh stays

26:56essentially the same area. It just gets

26:58a little shorter as the garage gets

27:00bigger.

27:02>> Any other questions for the petitioners?

27:06>> All right. Thank you very much. If there

27:08is anyone from the public who wishes to

27:10speak on this petition, now is your

27:12opportunity to do so. If you are here,

27:14um please come forward. If you are

27:16accessing remotely, please press star 9

27:19or use the raise hand button.

27:30There are no callers at this time.

27:31>> Thank you, John. Uh, with that, the

27:33public hearing is closed and we are in

27:35discussion. Um, I do have a quick

27:38question. So, they mentioned that they

27:39had several letters of support from

27:41their neighbors. I didn't see those in

27:44the packet. Did I miss they're within

27:46the packet um with that agenda item

27:49because they actually submitted them

27:50with their

27:52other documentation in a continuous PDF.

27:55So if you go to

27:57just the materials for the case

28:02should be there

28:06page number which makes it a little

28:07harder but

28:08>> I don't think I have letters either.

28:09>> I've seen one of the other

28:11>> Yeah. Oh, did it not up here?

28:21>> Yeah, I think they must have been

28:23attached to the uh they're within

28:25legislator. So,

28:26>> okay.

28:28>> They are publicly available in that

28:29regard.

28:30>> All right. Thank you.

28:33>> There were five different letters that

28:34were submitted including the neighbor to

28:36the north.

28:37>> Thank you.

28:41thoughts, comments,

28:44Julie.

28:46>> Uh so for me on this one, so I do think

28:50that it is a particular

28:53uh lot. I do think it does have um it

28:57does

28:59fit that piece. Um, I think the

29:04practical difficulty

29:06um

29:08it

29:11I think you could put addition somewhere

29:15else, but I do think that it would be

29:18less advantageous anywhere else on the

29:20property. I think there are big trees. I

29:22noticed that. I'm glad you addressed

29:24that. Um the runoff I think in a lot of

29:27these neighborhoods is quite a

29:30significant issue and um it's great if

29:34the city can address it but it's really

29:35great if private people can address so

29:38for like a sustainability and um I think

29:43that

29:45the difficult it is more incon like it

29:49is more than inconvenience there there

29:51are other factors like the

29:52sustainability issue the um

29:55sight lines and things where it's kind

29:58of the proposed is is really I don't

30:02think if you drove by it or walked by it

30:04in a year I don't think anybody's going

30:06to notice that anything had happened. Um

30:10I do think uh substantial justice again

30:13public benefits I do think this is more

30:15sustainable than any other uh

30:20proposal. We could say

30:23you just shouldn't do this, but that's

30:26not really um I do think that they have

30:28worked quite quite hard to to make this

30:33not very um to lessen the impact of this

30:39and I'm going to keep going here. Um

30:43it's not a self-imposed practical

30:45difficulty.

30:47I think

30:50this, you know, I'd like to have hear

30:52other people's um perspective on this,

30:55but it is a existing building, existing

30:58lot line. If if it were the reverse that

31:01the the house was in the sort of middle

31:04and they were asking to put this drive

31:06on the other side, I think that would

31:08change my mind. But this is really sort

31:11of just a fillin of an existing

31:14situation that has been there since what

31:161921 or something. Um, and although when

31:21I first read this it seemed like, oh my

31:22gosh, this is a giant variance, the

31:25reality is the house is where it is and

31:29like there is no I mean that it doesn't

31:32make sense to have a different variance

31:36like this just follows existing lines

31:38and keeps it within that same uh

31:41footprint. So, those are my thoughts on

31:44on this and I'm happy to hear other

31:47people's

31:49thoughts.

31:50>> Um, I can read off the letters of

31:52support. I have them if you

31:53>> that would be awesome, John. Thank you.

31:54Just so we have the names on the record.

31:56>> So, we have Barbara Kramer and Steven

31:59Aker of 505 Highland Road uh sent in a

32:02letter of support.

32:05We have Jane A. Hassinger from 440

32:10Highland who sent in a letter of

32:11support.

32:13We also have

32:16Harog G. Patiel of uh 2037 Gettys

32:21Avenue.

32:22We have Allan and Amanda Smurka. I hope

32:26I'm pronouncing that correctly at 2045

32:29Gettys Avenue. And that's all I have. I

32:32have four, I think. So,

32:35>> thank you, John. Any

32:40other thoughts, comments?

32:44Just sort of thinking out loud under

32:45item three.

32:48Um,

32:50were there response midway in that first

32:53paragraph that this will allow their

32:55home to be occupied and functional for

32:57themselves?

32:59I

33:01I have a hard time I mean that the the

33:04home is occupiable, you know, and it it

33:07it has rooms and bathrooms and a garage.

33:11Um, so I don't

33:15I would I'm not aligned with how that

33:18statement reads as a reason to approve

33:22um

33:25the variance based on that um that

33:28practical that alleged practical

33:30difficulty. I'm just I'm I'm not aligned

33:32because it's an occupiable

33:35um home

33:37and I I just think that this is a it's a

33:41betterment but not a requirement

33:44to provide them the living space that

33:47they need. Like it's yeah, it's

33:52it has the square footage and it has the

33:54proper uses for the home. So I'm I'm not

33:57aligned with how that's worded there.

34:01That's all I had right now, but

34:16I have a question. So, if they were just

34:17going to add on to their house without

34:19the garage, with the house already

34:20existing in this 2 ft from this, would

34:23they be here in front of us if they were

34:26just adding to the existing house?

34:28because it's already grandfathered in,

34:31for lack of a better term, as is the

34:34garage. I guess that's what I see as

34:37like Julie said, I mean, we're not doing

34:40anything different than what's already

34:41been there well before the zoning laws

34:43were put in place.

34:45>> Yeah. I I think the one issue there is

34:47that um a detached accessory structure

34:51doesn't create the setback line for a

34:53principal structure.

34:54>> But doesn't the other part of the house

34:55still in violation of it?

34:57>> It does. It is.

34:58>> What's the practical difference of that?

35:00If the house is I get it. If it's just

35:02the garage, but the house and the garage

35:04are both already in this setback area,

35:08>> right? And it's just putting uh

35:10>> what would be the difference?

35:11>> It's putting more of the principal

35:12building um and a more non-conforming

35:16um kind of position within the the sub.

35:20>> Okay. Yeah. So, I'll speak evening

35:22further to that. um they could build uh

35:24vertically right now, but once you build

35:27horizontally and continue into that

35:29setback, it creates the principal

35:31structure into a more non-conforming

35:33state. Okay?

35:34>> And then once you attach a detach

35:36structure to a principal structure, both

35:38structures have to comply with the

35:40setback rear yard requirement for the

35:42district. And so

35:44>> is there

35:45>> instead of it being 2 ft for the garage,

35:47it now becomes the entire structure is

35:4937 ft 10 in from the rear lot. Right.

35:52>> And is there a certain percentage of the

35:54house that I mean the existing part

35:56right now is already non-conforming?

35:58>> It is. And so is there a by extending

36:02that amount of you know property line

36:05with in this is that something of

36:08consideration

36:10I mean how much of it

36:11>> once you even extend it one inch you're

36:14creating a more non-conforming situation

36:16but like I said they could build

36:18vertically.

36:19>> Okay.

36:19>> Right. Anything additional on the

36:20principal structure that goes beyond the

36:22existing setback of the principal

36:25structure is going to require variance

36:28certainly whether it's one or two

36:30stories.

36:31>> Okay.

36:32>> Well, they could also extend the line of

36:34that existing structure, right? If it

36:36was not going any closer to the correct

36:39>> rear property line,

36:40>> they could do that with

36:41>> they could build it out this way and

36:42like more in the back here where it's

36:44notched out more toward the existing

36:46house but not

36:48>> right

36:48>> more north.

36:50>> Correct.

36:56>> Yeah. Sorry, Dharma.

36:57>> I'm sorry if this was already covered,

36:58but what's to the north of the house?

37:02like along that side

37:03>> there's another property that

37:04>> it's it's a similarly situated property.

37:06This this lot's kind of like mirrored to

37:09the north that way.

37:09>> Okay.

37:10>> Um

37:10>> so similarly with the house close to the

37:13lot line.

37:13>> No, the house on the northerly property

37:16um I measured on GIS to have

37:18approximately a 50-ish foot setback. So

37:20it's actually quite a bit more setback

37:23than than this one on the southerntherly

37:24lot.

37:42I'm struggling with this one a little

37:44bit because while I agree with Julie

37:48in the case of if we're going to look at

37:50an addition, this seems like the best

37:54place compared to the disruption that

37:56would be caused by putting it on the

37:58south side.

38:00But that said,

38:02is the addition

38:04really necessary? And is it the minimum

38:07necessary?

38:10I'm wondering if there's another way to

38:12do this that's not

38:14putting the entire structure 2 and 1/2

38:16ft from the property line.

38:24Yeah, Julie,

38:26>> if the garage was extended but not

38:30attached to the house,

38:33does that change anything?

38:37>> Uh,

38:38>> just pulled forward.

38:39>> Yeah.

38:40>> Towards the street.

38:43>> You mean just do the garage addition

38:44without the addition to the principal

38:46structure? Um, no, you'd not be able to

38:49because we don't allow for um

38:52essentially building onto that

38:53non-conformity with a detached accessory

38:56structure that only would apply to the

38:58principal

38:59>> uh structure on the property.

39:02>> So, basically, if they were to expand

39:04the garage, they would um they would

39:07need a variance for for the existing

39:10setbacks

39:11>> essentially.

39:25Any other discussion?

39:29>> I mean, I'm feeling similarly, I think,

39:32a little unsure because I I I agree with

39:34Julie. I don't think there's a a really

39:37practical way to do an addition on this

39:40house that's not

39:43somehow like that requires an additional

39:46variance. Um,

39:49but this structure functions as a home

39:51right now um without that additional

39:54structure. So,

39:57I'm not sure it meets the minimum

39:58standards.

40:06>> You ready for a motion?

40:08>> Are we allowed to speak to that? Just

40:09>> No, I'm sorry. Okay, we're in discussion

40:11now.

40:12>> Just want to make

40:18>> I think John's hard at work summarizing

40:20over there.

40:34>> [clears throat]

40:35>> these are just suggested findings

40:37>> 100% just suggested findings take them

40:39leave them modify them

40:44>> and then obviously you can look at the

40:45context of the applicants u findings in

40:48relationship to to staffs Those

40:53are on the uh final page of the staff

40:56report.

41:01And if we want to use

41:04different findings or add to these

41:06findings, do we have to write those down

41:10for everyone or can someone just

41:11verbally say those? who well I I can

41:14read what I've heard so far but if

41:16someone wants to make a motion they can

41:18add the findings that they want into

41:20that and then read it

41:22>> and some of the findings that I've heard

41:24so far is um on two different sides of

41:27one is it's the um the uh the variance

41:32is not self-imposed

41:34the house placement is has in the

41:37existing footprint has been existing

41:38since 1921

41:40and I've also heard the home is

41:42currently occupiable when there is no

41:44practical difficulty.

41:47The addition is not a requirement.

41:50The structure functions as a home and

41:52meets the minimum standards

41:57and the addition is not the minimum

42:01necessary.

42:02So if you want to incorporate those or

42:04write your own findings and then read

42:07the motion. And it appears that there is

42:09the most unanimity on four and five that

42:14um

42:17certainly the house functions as it has

42:19since 1921. And then also the issue of

42:22it being the minimum necessary

42:26which this is I believe 94.6%

42:316% of the overall dimensional

42:33requirement.

42:36>> Was that

42:38>> um that basically the variance is

42:43almost the entire dimensional

42:45requirement.

42:46>> They couldn't go almost any any more

42:48like 100% would mean they would take out

42:50what

42:51>> 100% would mean that they have zero

42:52setback.

42:53>> Okay, gotcha.

42:56Okay.

43:03Can you give it a shot?

43:04>> I mean, yeah, in prepping for the

43:06meeting, I wrote up some findings and

43:07then I've heard the conversation,

43:09everything, so I can try to do this, but

43:12people can correct me if they're not

43:14happy with it. So,

43:17>> um, I will make a motion.

43:21>> Thank you, Mike.

43:21>> All right. Um, so this is ZBA26-0012500

43:26Highland Road.

43:29Based on the following findings of fact,

43:32there is practical difficulty that is

43:35exceptional and peculiar to the property

43:37and results from conditions that do not

43:39exist generally throughout the city.

43:41This standard is met because the lot has

43:44an unusual combination of dual frontage

43:47on Gettys and Highland, a regular

43:48geometry, a 1921

43:52house and garage already deeply within

43:55the existing 40ft rear setback

43:58a fixed existing driveway and a

44:00significant grade drop south of the

44:01house.

44:04Okay. uh the practical difficulty which

44:07will result from a failure to grant the

44:08variance includes substantially more

44:10than mere inconvenience and/or inability

44:12to attain a higher financial return. The

44:16standard is met because strict

44:17compliance require abandoning the

44:19existing garage driveway relationship,

44:21moving substantial new construction to

44:23the areas of the lot where the site

44:25drops sharply, potentially requiring

44:28major grading, cutting down trees,

44:32um all of those things.

44:36All right. Allowing the variance will

44:38result in substantial justice being done

44:40considering the public benefits of the

44:42zoning ordinance, the practical

44:44difficulties that will be suffered by a

44:45failure to grant a variance, and the

44:47rights of others whose property would be

44:49affected by allowing the variance.

44:53The standard is met because the proposed

44:54addition does not extend closer to the

44:56rear lot line than the existing garage

44:59and actually improves the minimum

45:00setback slightly. The design preserves

45:03the established driveway location and

45:06south facing architectural character of

45:07the house. Multiple neighbors are in

45:11support of the project and report no

45:12objection to its scale or placement.

45:22The conditions and circumstances of the

45:24proposed variance are not a selfimposed

45:28practical difficulty. The standard is

45:31met because the lot configuration,

45:33street pattern, topography, 1921 house

45:36placement, existing garage and driveway

45:38all predate the current owners. The

45:40owners did not create the physical

45:42conditions that make the current 40ft

45:43setback difficult to satisfy.

45:47And then a variance

45:49shall be the minimum variance that will

45:52make possible a reasonable use of the

45:55land or structure. The standard is met

45:59because the requested 2.167 foot setback

46:03follows the plane of the existing garage

46:05and is slightly less non-conforming than

46:07the existing uh condition. The design

46:10again uses the existing driveway and

46:12garage location rather than creating a

46:14new encroachment closer to the lot line

46:17um supporting a finding that the relief

46:19itself is tightly tied to the existing

46:21structure.

46:28That's what I

46:29>> Sounds good.

46:30>> Do we have support?

46:31>> Yes.

46:32>> Thank you, Drew.

46:35>> So, can I just ask so uh

46:39I was listening to all your words. Um

46:42but so you in what you read, the

46:45standard was met for all five.

46:47>> I was making if I'm not not I'm not

46:50saying how I'm going to vote either way.

46:51I'm just saying if we were going to vote

46:53yes, that's that would justify our yeses

46:56on all five factors.

46:58>> Yeah. It took all of those to mean that

46:59all five factors were

47:01>> were met.

47:02>> And then people can vote yes or no if

47:04they I mean, isn't that how we're

47:06supposed to do it?

47:06>> Yeah. I think that's consistent with our

47:08rules that require us to make motions in

47:10the

47:11>> affirmative.

47:12>> Affirmative,

47:15>> right? Isn't that what we learned a

47:17[laughter] week ago? Maybe it was a

47:19close session. I don't know what was

47:20discussed. Uh,

47:21>> so I think I'm somewhat confused cuz

47:23these standards can be not met

47:26>> and then you'd vote no. Right.

47:28>> Right. Regardless of it being written in

47:32the affirmative, you would just vote

47:33against it essentially in that case.

47:35>> Okay. I'm trying to remember. I think in

47:38the past we had said like, you know, it

47:40didn't meet that standard or rather than

47:44>> But if we did it that way and someone

47:46wanted to vote

47:46>> Yeah. Yes.

47:47>> it would be right. I see what you mean.

47:50>> Right. Yep. So, okay.

47:52>> That's why I did it that way. I mean,

47:53I'm not saying I'm I'm making the

47:55argument.

47:56>> Yep. I got it.

47:57>> I may myself. I'm not going to spoil it,

47:59but [laughter] I I have to vote myself.

48:05>> All right. We have a motion. We have

48:07support.

48:08Dharma,

48:10>> no.

48:12>> Drew,

48:14>> yes.

48:15>> Christina, no.

48:18Patty,

48:19>> yes.

48:21>> Roberta,

48:22>> yes.

48:24>> Julie,

48:26>> yes.

48:28>> I vote no.

48:31Mike,

48:31>> no.

48:33>> The request is denied.

48:39Moving on to petition ZBA 25-00008,

48:451620 Kierney Road.

48:48Eric,

48:50let me grab my uh work here. All right,

48:55let's get us down to

49:01All right.

49:03So, by way of introduction, uh the

49:05approximately 0.4 4 acre subject

49:09property is zoned R1B single family

49:12residential and is a double frontage or

49:14through lot located on the west side of

49:16Kernney Road between Adair Road and

49:20Avenue. Uh this item is actually a

49:22reharing uh per section 5.29.13E

49:27of the Unified Development Code. An

49:29application for a rehering shall be made

49:31in the same manner as for an original

49:33hearing. The application for a reh

49:34hearing shall be denied by the zoning

49:36board of appeals if the applicant is

49:37unable to present evidence to show that

49:39there has been a substantial change in

49:41facts, circumstances, or scope or nature

49:44of relief requested.

49:47On May 27th, 2026, the zoning board of

49:50appeals denied the applicant's request

49:52for a 4ft and 50% variance from section

49:555.26.2B,

49:58table 5.26-1 26-1 of the Unified

50:00Development Code to permit an 8-ft tall,

50:03100% opaque fence within a front yard

50:05along Washington Avenue, where 4T is the

50:08maximum height permitted and 50% is the

50:10maximum opacity permitted.

50:13Um, per section 5.29.13E

50:18of the Unified Development Code, the

50:19applicants have applied for a reharing

50:21with the following request, which is a

50:23twoft and 50% variance from section

50:265.26B 26B

50:28table 5.26-1

50:30of the unified development code of

50:31permit is 6' tall as opposed to 8t tall.

50:34Uh 100% opaque fence within a front yard

50:38along Washington Avenue where 4T is the

50:40maximum height permitted and 50% is the

50:43maximum opacity permitted. Uh note that

50:46per section 5.182

50:49of the unified development code uh

50:52regulations pertaining to the front yard

50:54of the zoning district in which the lot

50:56is located shall be applied to every lot

50:57line that abuts a public street. Um

51:01hence why this is considered a front

51:03yard with the frontage on Avenue. I will

51:08go through a few slides to provide

51:10additional context. Here is the zoning

51:14map which shows the zoning of the

51:16subject property as well as the

51:18surrounding properties. Uh we have the

51:21aerial map that shows the subject

51:23property as well as the surrounding

51:25properties.

51:27Uh the zoomed in aerial of the subject

51:29property.

51:31Here we have the boundary survey of the

51:34subject property.

51:37Uh here we have kind of a another plat

51:40map that the uh the applicant had

51:43included that shows the location of the

51:44subject property. Uh kind of points out

51:47that there is some public land on the

51:49other side of the road here.

51:55Uh some other kind of call outs from the

51:57applicant on the map here uh showing

52:00where there is things like buffering for

52:03example. And then there's also a sample

52:05kind of elevation of what the uh fence

52:08would look the proposed fence would look

52:10like.

52:13Another kind of map with some different

52:14callouts of uh different features that

52:17the the applicant found to be noteworthy

52:20in the context of this request.

52:25See some kind of street views here.

52:28Uh certainly we're at a time of year in

52:31these that uh the foliage is is kind of

52:35in bloom here

52:38and then kind of looking up and down uh

52:43washing up from the other angles.

52:48And this, I believe, was also a street

52:51view uh at a little different time of

52:53year where the foliage isn't quite

52:55there. And you can much better see the

52:58existing fence.

53:00And here with the foliage um where you

53:03it almost becomes

53:06non-existent. Uh this is a picture taken

53:10from the driveway beside the house kind

53:13of looking at the backyard at the

53:14existing fence. It was taken during a

53:16site inspection.

53:18Same here. Just a little bit closer view

53:20of that. And uh that is all I have by

53:24way of introduction.

53:27>> Thank you, Eric. Questions? Yeah, Derma.

53:31>> So, to be clear, uh currently they have

53:34an old non-conforming fence. Can staff

53:38clarify? Okay.

53:39>> Yeah, there's an 8ft uh fence the length

53:42of that property line.

53:43>> And do we know how that happened? Did

53:44they get a variance? Uh we don't have a

53:47variance on record.

53:48>> Okay. So it was installed against the

53:51code. It

53:51>> was installed some time ago.

53:53>> Okay.

53:55>> Any other questions for Eric?

53:58>> All right. If the petitioner is here, if

54:00you could please come forward, sign in,

54:01state your name for the record. You'll

54:03have five minutes.

54:05>> Mary Hunter, homeowner.

54:16>> [clears throat]

54:18>> Good evening. My name is Mary Hunter and

54:20I'm here on behalf of my husband Steven

54:22and our family. We live at 1620 Carne

54:25Road with our three sons who are five,

54:27six, and 15 months old. We respectfully

54:31ask that you grant a variance allowing

54:32us to replace the existing 8ft wooden

54:34fence along the Avenue side of our

54:36property with a 6-ft composite fence in

54:39the same location.

54:41We understand that variances are based

54:43on particularities of the property and

54:45not simply our preference. This property

54:48has genuine genuinely unusual

54:50conditions. Although the fence line is

54:52treated as a front yard boundary for

54:54zoning purposes, it does not function

54:56like a typical residential front yard.

54:58It directly abuts Washna Avenue, which

55:00is I95 business loop, a multi-lane road

55:04with a 45 mph speed limit. In addition,

55:07across this road is public land, and our

55:10property lies uphill, um, making it not

55:13visible to surrounding residential

55:14properties.

55:16The proposed fence would simply replace

55:18a taller, fully opaque fence that

55:20existed in the same location since

55:22before we bought the property. We are

55:24asking to reduce the height from 8 to 6

55:26ft in this reharing and replace the

55:28aging wood fence with a durable molded

55:30stone composite. We are not extending

55:33the fence. Enclosing new territory or

55:35changing the estab established use of

55:37the yard

55:39for our family. A substantial barrier in

55:42this location is a important safety

55:44measure. Like all parents, we supervise

55:46our children. But with three young boys,

55:49especially a toddler, we also rely on

55:52physical safeguards around our home. A

55:54shorter and more open fence would be

55:57easier to climb and see through and

55:59provide less separation from a

56:00fastmoving traffic.

56:03The six foot 6-foot opaque fence would

56:05create a secure and unmistakable

56:07boundary between our children's play

56:08area and that of the roadway.

56:12The proposal would have little effect on

56:15the neighborhood or the public. Mature

56:17trees and foliage, as you saw, screen

56:19much of the fence from I84 business

56:21loop. The fence line does not face

56:23nearby homes. It faces major roadway and

56:26public land. There are no nearby

56:28intersections, driveways, crosswalks,

56:30traffic signals, or neighborhood

56:32entrances whose sight lines would be

56:33affected. And because the replacement

56:36would occupy the same location as the

56:37existing fence and would actually be 2

56:39ft shorter, it would not create a new

56:41traffic or pedestrian visibility

56:42concern.

56:44Um we also have um three letters of

56:47support from our immediate neighbors as

56:48well as other folks um in our vicinity

56:51that support this.

56:53Um

56:56we also recognize that every variance

56:59must be defi decided on its own facts

57:01and in our materials we identified two

57:03recent cases which the board approved a

57:056ft opaque fence for residential

57:07properties along 45 mileph corridors

57:10including one on avenue. We are not

57:12asking for automatic approval based off

57:15these decisions, understanding that each

57:17case has their own particularities, but

57:19we are asking for consistent

57:20consideration of the same court concerns

57:23and unusually exposed residential

57:25boundary, fastmoving traffic, safety,

57:27buffering, and the minimal effect on

57:29surrounding properties.

57:31Without this variance, we would be

57:33required to use a fence that does not

57:35adequately respond to the unique

57:36relationship between this yard and a

57:38major roadway.

57:40Granting the variance would preserve a

57:42safety barrier that already exists and

57:44existed prior to us buying the property.

57:47This is a sightsp specific request and

57:49would not harm neighboring properties,

57:51alter the neighborhood character or

57:52interfere with track visibility. And it

57:55would allow our three young children and

57:57the neighborhood children who play with

57:58them to use our yard with a reasonable

58:00measure of protection from I94 business

58:02loop. For these reasons, we respectfully

58:05ask the board to approve the variance

58:07and I thank you for your time and

58:08consideration.

58:10Thank you. Questions for the applicant.

58:14>> Mike,

58:14>> did I guess um I you know certainly

58:18appreciate the reduction in from 8 to 6

58:20feet, right? That's 50% reduction of

58:23what you were asking on a variance. Um

58:25but why not

58:27the go to like 75% opacity? Why does it

58:31have to be 100%.

58:32>> Um most often for the um ability to

58:36climb. So most fences, I mean, you can

58:38have vertical, but just the ability to

58:40grab onto the fence and hold it up, but

58:41having a flatter fence is part of the

58:43reason for that. Also for um the just,

58:48you know, noise and um visibility of

58:51having the traffic lights come through

58:52in a place where children play. That's

58:55probably lesser of a concern, but

58:56definitely a consideration.

58:58>> Great. Thank you.

58:59>> I have a question. Um when we look at

59:01the the parcel viewer parcel base map

59:05visualization

59:07go to that one. Uh

59:10yeah I mean there's like we see a whole

59:12row of of homes along that are similar

59:16to yours as like based on what I see on

59:18the map and based on you know Yeah. what

59:21I see on the map. So can you tell me a

59:23little bit more about why your specific

59:25property is different than the many

59:27homes that are on? So, um I think if you

59:30skip forward a little bit, um to where

59:34you can kind of see a little bit more of

59:35how things are done, but the the

59:37properties immediately above and below

59:39us, the one immediately above us does

59:41have a fence already in place um that

59:44has retaining wall cuz as the topography

59:46goes down, they have more protection

59:48from the road.

59:49>> Sorry. And then for our neighbors

59:51immediately to the north and east of us

59:53is our proximity of our yard to the road

59:56is much closer because of the way the

59:58culde-sac is. And so that's the unique

1:00:00aspect of our property that is different

1:00:03from the neighbors on either side of us

1:00:05is as the curve of the culde-sac changes

1:00:07their position in their yard compared to

1:00:09that road is different.

1:00:12Thank you. And did you um consider any

1:00:16uh alternative options to a fence that

1:00:19would also block sound, you know, like

1:00:21hedges, per anything else that was

1:00:24potential like either farther in in the

1:00:26yard or really along that fence line

1:00:28that would perform the same function as

1:00:30a fence. Fortunately, there is already a

1:00:32lot there as you kind of could see from

1:00:33the pictures as far as foliage that

1:00:35disguises the fence but also allows some

1:00:37privacy of the property. The fence

1:00:39really though is for that physical

1:00:41barrier. um for a yard where children

1:00:43play and hedges and other things can be

1:00:47got through more easily than a opaque

1:00:49fence. Um that would allow for more I

1:00:52think physical safety barrier. That

1:00:54would be kind of the minimum

1:00:55requirements for safety.

1:01:00>> Any other questions for the petitioner?

1:01:03I had a quick question about the um can

1:01:06you talk to the materiality of the

1:01:09proposed you mentioned it quickly a comp

1:01:11something composite.

1:01:13>> Yeah I I realize that's not part of the

1:01:16application and like what all you need

1:01:18to know about approving but just to be

1:01:20fully transparent. Um this is a

1:01:22composite material that will be much

1:01:24more durable meaning also have like a

1:01:26better appearance for longer than the

1:01:29current wooden fence which is starting

1:01:30to fall down. Um it is a similar color

1:01:33of that grayish that is similar to the

1:01:35fence that is already there and should

1:01:36disappear into the foliage. It won't be

1:01:38bright and off-putting. Um so that's

1:01:40kind of why I included it. And it's of

1:01:42course opaque and comes in the 6T um

1:01:47height.

1:01:56>> Can you speak to why 4 feet is not

1:02:00sufficient? um for the issues that you

1:02:02outlined.

1:02:04>> I mostly um for that physical barrier of

1:02:07safety um so as not to allow not just

1:02:11children to go over towards the roadway

1:02:13but also for balls and other things that

1:02:15are played within a yard near a house.

1:02:18You know what the use of that yard is

1:02:19for um to also contain our things from

1:02:22the roadway. So I think the height is

1:02:24necessary um in order to not allow for

1:02:28jumping over but also not allow for like

1:02:30other things to accidentally go onto the

1:02:32roadway. Um again there is foliage there

1:02:34which can help contain that but not all

1:02:36the year as you saw. Um and so I think

1:02:39that the height is important for safety.

1:02:44>> Any other questions?

1:02:49>> All right. Thank you very much.

1:02:51>> Thank you. If anyone from the public

1:02:52wishes to speak on this petition, now is

1:02:54your opportunity to do so. Please, I

1:02:57don't think I see anyone here, but if

1:02:59there's anyone online, um, please press

1:03:00star 9 or use the raise hand button.

1:03:03>> There are no callers at this time.

1:03:05>> Thank you, John. Um, I will note we did

1:03:07receive three letters of support.

1:03:10Um, one from Jenna and Mike Olsen at

1:03:141610 Kernney.

1:03:17Um, one from Jamie Picare and one from

1:03:23Rebecca Sraata at 1615 Kernney Road.

1:03:28With that, the public hearing is closed

1:03:30and we are in discussion.

1:03:39I will say um I appreciate you coming

1:03:41back and taking um into consideration

1:03:43our feedback from your previous visit

1:03:46here. Um

1:03:49I'm inclined to support this. I don't

1:03:56in this stretch in particular functions

1:03:58differently than a front yard I think is

1:04:01intended to. It's an M dot road. Um, so

1:04:04the city has less jurisdiction over it

1:04:08than they might other public roads in

1:04:10the city. Um, there's not

1:04:14intersections off of here that the

1:04:16visibility could be blocked by this

1:04:18fence. There's not concerns with

1:04:21pedestrians or bicycles that visibility

1:04:25of them or for them is going to be

1:04:27impacted by this fence. Um, I think the

1:04:30existing vegetation

1:04:33for half to threequarters of the year

1:04:36probably does a pretty sufficient job of

1:04:37screening it to the point that you

1:04:40wouldn't even realize the fence is

1:04:41there. Um,

1:04:44I can speak to the topography issue

1:04:47having sat at the softball field at

1:04:49Tapen Middle School a lot of times and

1:04:52that's so much lower than Washington and

1:04:54so screened with vegetation that you

1:04:56wouldn't even know that the cars are

1:04:58flying by there. But it's an opposite

1:05:00story if you're on the other side where

1:05:01it's much higher. Um,

1:05:06so yeah, for me I think um

1:05:09I think this checks all the boxes and

1:05:13I'm inclined to support it.

1:05:14>> I just had a question I guess maybe to

1:05:16Eric. So it's technically their front

1:05:18yard because it abuts and that Kierney

1:05:21is a culde-sac

1:05:23>> uh solely because the property line uh

1:05:25abotss

1:05:27>> and so if you're on like if you scroll

1:05:29up like a dare is right there. So if you

1:05:31have a house that's on a dair and wash

1:05:34still can why why wouldn't you have two

1:05:36fingers two front yards in that case? Y

1:05:38>> I see.

1:05:39>> Y

1:05:41>> and there are similarly situated lots on

1:05:44there that front on

1:05:45>> I just was curious. Okay. So if it ab

1:05:46butts a public street then it's

1:05:48automatically a front yard. [snorts]

1:05:49>> Exactly. Okay.

1:05:50>> That's the only criteria.

1:05:52>> Oh go ahead Julie Julie. Um,

1:05:55so I just don't see how this is peculiar

1:06:00to the property. That's where I'm really

1:06:03stuck on this is because this is I mean

1:06:06I'm just on Google Maps here going up

1:06:08and down and like it's like whoa fence

1:06:10and there all the other houses have it

1:06:13looks like adhered to the 4ft fence and

1:06:18opacity and I just I think that's our

1:06:23our city you know how we want our city

1:06:27to be and to be welcoming and it may not

1:06:29be at a stoplight or it may not be um

1:06:33but just you know lining our main

1:06:35thoroughfairs with fences is not I think

1:06:38that is contrary to what we want which

1:06:42is why we have a 4ft fence with 50%

1:06:44opacity and I just don't see that this

1:06:46is exceptional there are a lot of houses

1:06:50along

1:06:51and many of them are as close and I I I

1:06:56I don't see how this fits that criter

1:06:59criteria. That's that's where I'm really

1:07:02um really stuck on this is is it just

1:07:06doesn't it it doesn't seem unique.

1:07:10>> I mean I will like looking at the at the

1:07:13visual of the um topography you can I

1:07:17mean you can physically see that the

1:07:19house is slightly is closer than some of

1:07:21the other homes

1:07:22>> in the area. Eric, do you know how many

1:07:24of the houses along Washington in that

1:07:26section do have fences or have been I

1:07:29know

1:07:31the the petitioner mentioned a few of

1:07:32the

1:07:34um a few of the ones that have been

1:07:36approved, but

1:07:37>> yeah, I guess Sheridan is the most

1:07:39recent example. Um I believe there's one

1:07:41also across the street on Sheridan that

1:07:45is existing not conforming. It's a very

1:07:47old fence. You can see that the wood is

1:07:49quite weathered on that one. I believe

1:07:50it's five or six feet in height there.

1:07:53um

1:07:54>> across Washington you said

1:07:56>> on on the same side of is the one that

1:07:58was approved on Sheridan but across on

1:08:01the other corner there's also a fence

1:08:03there.

1:08:04>> Um and then you see obviously a lot of

1:08:06these black kind of row iron looking uh

1:08:09fencing along here

1:08:11>> which I believe uh was city installed as

1:08:14part of the the sidewalk insulation

1:08:17project or something along those lines.

1:08:19M

1:08:20>> um

1:08:20>> and is the elevation on that property

1:08:23like significantly different in terms of

1:08:26>> the question around noise or

1:08:28accessibility?

1:08:31>> The uh increase in grade towards

1:08:34>> towards the home

1:08:35>> uh Washington Avenue I think is pretty

1:08:36similar to other houses on

1:08:39>> Can you go back to that please review

1:08:41the existing fence from the street?

1:08:52Is this the one where

1:08:55there

1:09:03actually I didn't notice. Is that a

1:09:04shadow or what is it? Is that a double

1:09:07fence there? The rod iron on the left.

1:09:10>> Yeah, they're overlapping there.

1:09:12>> They're just overlapping

1:09:13>> at that point. Yeah. which you know gets

1:09:15at the fact that the black road iron um

1:09:18was installed you know by a public

1:09:21entity.

1:09:22>> Okay. Okay. Right.

1:09:24>> Okay. Understood.

1:09:32>> And the existing non-conforming fence is

1:09:358 feet in height.

1:09:37>> Correct.

1:09:40So in that visual at six feet it would

1:09:42be about the same height as the rod iron

1:09:45or I can't actually tell perspective is

1:09:48>> I think it's hard to really ascertain

1:09:49scale in a in a photograph like this but

1:09:51it kind of looks that way doesn't it?

1:09:53>> It does but then you look at it doesn't

1:09:54seem like the pencil on there would be

1:09:56that tall.

1:10:00>> It's sitting on

1:10:01>> well this one is all the Yeah, the

1:10:03publicly uh installed fence is also

1:10:05sitting on a retaining wall to some

1:10:06extent.

1:10:09That may be its purpose. It might be

1:10:12required as a barrier on top of the

1:10:15retaining wall unless as a fence,

1:10:18>> right?

1:10:18>> It's hard to know,

1:10:19>> right? Yeah. Yeah.

1:10:23>> Dra's got a question.

1:10:25>> Yeah. Sorry, Dharma.

1:10:27>> Yes. Yeah. [laughter]

1:10:30>> Um I think I feel similarly that I don't

1:10:32really This doesn't seem like it's a

1:10:35unique situation. Um there's houses all

1:10:38along that are similar to this. And then

1:10:42um similarly for the substantial justice

1:10:46uh criterion,

1:10:48you know, allowing the variance will be

1:10:52contrary to why we kind of have this

1:10:54rule which you know creates like a

1:10:57fortress-like aesthetic along avenue.

1:11:01I'm totally sympathetic to uh living

1:11:05next to a 45 mph arterial. Um and I

1:11:10think as I've said at this table before,

1:11:12I think we should these roads should not

1:11:14be 45 m an hour. That doesn't solve her

1:11:17immediate issue. But I do feel that

1:11:20other people are able you know 4T with

1:11:23the 50% opacity is sufficient uh to

1:11:27address kind of the separation concerns.

1:11:30So again, I think it comes down to more

1:11:32kind of keeping with the intent of the

1:11:36zoning code and also recognizing that

1:11:40this parcel is I don't think unique.

1:11:47I think that I guess some of the

1:11:49rebuttal would be this is an un the

1:11:51other ones that we had were stop lights.

1:11:53So you have cars. This is these cars are

1:11:54going at least 45 unbroken through this

1:11:57part which I think is unique being an M

1:11:59dot road. And I think the positioning of

1:12:01the house to me is also something to

1:12:04consider in terms of the practical use

1:12:07of the property given the fact that you

1:12:08have

1:12:10a unique set of

1:12:13this stretch of particularly is sort of

1:12:15uninterrupted.

1:12:17So you have cars that are at this stage

1:12:20usually going

1:12:2250 plus miles an hour. There's no stop

1:12:24lightss to stop them. There's not a lot

1:12:26of streets to turn on. So I think that

1:12:28that to me

1:12:30that shows some uniqueness, but I

1:12:32certainly understand your points.

1:12:41>> Any other discussion?

1:12:44>> You ready for a motion? So Drew, are you

1:12:45saying that it's the com it's not

1:12:47necessarily one of those factors? It's

1:12:48the combination of the two that makes it

1:12:50quite unique.

1:12:51>> Yeah. I think the fact that you have a

1:12:52this is a very unique piece of road in

1:12:54the city.

1:12:56>> And given that where their house is on

1:12:59the lot, there are lots of lots on the

1:13:02street, but if you look, most of those

1:13:03are on a dare and this would really sort

1:13:05of be technically their backyard. So to

1:13:08me, it just seems something to consider.

1:13:16Just go.

1:13:23>> Julie, sorry.

1:13:24>> Um Um I think for me I'm looking at not

1:13:28just that those few houses on Adair. I'm

1:13:32looking at the stretch of Washna and

1:13:34also Plymouth, some parts of South

1:13:36Maine. Um

1:13:39>> just to interject, another good analogy

1:13:40might be Anarceline Road. Annivers Lane

1:13:42Road. Yeah.

1:13:44>> A lot of throughout have a local

1:13:46>> a fair number of of places around the

1:13:49city um where where this is and if you

1:13:53go across there's a lot of houses that

1:13:56are even closer it looks like. So I I

1:13:59just don't see that this is a unique

1:14:01situation.

1:14:05>> Are those roads though that just

1:14:07mentioned are those MD dot roads or are

1:14:09they city roads? No, those are all local

1:14:12roads.

1:14:12>> Okay. So, there could be other avenues

1:14:14to get the speed reduced as opposed to

1:14:18wash rate which is a stateowned road.

1:14:22>> Well, Hiron is also an M dot road. Maine

1:14:25is M dot. Uh so there's Plymouth is M

1:14:30dot. So most of those are

1:14:34>> are M dot.

1:14:35>> Yeah. And an Arbur Seline is the other

1:14:37example is um it it's when you look at

1:14:41national functional classification I

1:14:43guess is what you call it basically it

1:14:45carries a similar traffic volume at a

1:14:47similar speed um those are kind of two

1:14:49factors that you look at although it

1:14:51might not be you know a state road in

1:14:53the same exact sense as Washington they

1:14:56carry similar traffic volume it lines

1:14:58and similar schools

1:15:08>> sorry can you go to the Google

1:15:10page.

1:15:13One more back one. The the one that

1:15:17shows the fence on it. That one.

1:15:18>> This one.

1:15:19>> And so the so every sing like I mean

1:15:24what we are saying is all the other

1:15:25properties along there have significant

1:15:28like wooded fence wooded areas right

1:15:32>> on that side.

1:15:33>> Yes. like where there are no stop

1:15:35lightss where like to Drew's point

1:15:38>> it's the only it's the only parcel

1:15:41without

1:15:43that buffer

1:15:46in that section right

1:15:48>> you see on the the green on the top and

1:15:51the bottom

1:15:52>> so it's the I mean their there's their

1:15:54their houses in the middle there that

1:15:56doesn't have that level of like wooded

1:15:59buffering that all the other properties

1:16:02along that stretch where as we've said

1:16:04there's

1:16:05It's faster. There's no

1:16:08um

1:16:10there's no stop lightss. There's no

1:16:13crosswalks.

1:16:15It's the only one that that sort of

1:16:16really abuts the road in that fashion.

1:16:23I mean, I'm I'm asking because that's

1:16:24what it looks like on there, but I don't

1:16:26know if that's actually a consideration.

1:16:31I'm not saying there's not houses there.

1:16:32Like all those houses are there, but

1:16:33they have the wooded property.

1:16:35>> Yeah. I don't know how

1:16:36>> the other side.

1:16:39>> Yeah, there's certainly varying depth to

1:16:41the to the woodlands in there.

1:16:43>> If you would even call them woodlands, I

1:16:45would call it foliage, I guess,

1:16:46generally or something like that.

1:16:49>> Just trying to understand it is I think

1:16:52that's what I'm struggling with is how

1:16:53unique is this individual property

1:16:55compared to other properties?

1:16:59Um,

1:17:06>> well, some of the properties on the

1:17:07south side there are not residential

1:17:10properties. I don't know. I don't know

1:17:12about some of the ones to the north of

1:17:14the school.

1:17:16>> How many of those are commercial or

1:17:19office type uses as opposed to a a house

1:17:22that someone lives in? Because I mean,

1:17:24that makes a difference in my opinion.

1:17:27>> Yeah.

1:17:36I mean, they certainly look like houses.

1:17:41>> Yeah, I think I think there's apartments

1:17:44>> just to the north there, but I think

1:17:45that I think you're right. I think

1:17:47beyond that there may be one or two, but

1:17:48and then you get down to the synagogue.

1:17:50That's

1:17:50>> right. Yeah, there are a couple of

1:17:52properties in there that have like small

1:17:54parking lots and things that might be

1:17:56indicative of some kind of commercial

1:17:58use here and there,

1:17:59>> but then on those properties, Washington

1:18:01really serves as their front yard.

1:18:03>> Correct. And then they have a correct a

1:18:05separate backyard, whereas this

1:18:06property, this really is slightly

1:18:09different in that it's their backyard

1:18:10compared to a dare.

1:18:12>> Certainly.

1:18:18>> I think Mike has a question.

1:18:19>> Yeah, Mike.

1:18:20>> Just

1:18:22I'm not I'm having less of a hard time

1:18:24with the uniqueness. Where I'm having a

1:18:26hard time is the is the fifth factor on

1:18:28the minimum

1:18:30>> to make reasonable use.

1:18:32And sympathetic as I am to safety

1:18:35concerns of children,

1:18:38I feel like that's

1:18:41kind of a consideration. We're not we're

1:18:44supposed to just think about the

1:18:46property, right? So,

1:18:49um,

1:18:51doesn't feel good to my heart,

1:18:53[laughter] but my head is telling me I'm

1:18:57going to have a hard time with that

1:18:58fifth factor there.

1:19:00>> I look at it as they are improving the

1:19:05situation of the existing fence, which

1:19:06is 8 ft tall. They're bringing it down

1:19:08to six. So while it's not all the way

1:19:11down to four, it's they're reducing the

1:19:14nonconformity heading towards

1:19:16conformity,

1:19:17>> right? Baby steps.

1:19:20>> Good point.

1:19:24>> I'm not telling you that's how you

1:19:25should think. I'm just that was my

1:19:27reasoning.

1:19:28>> That's Thank you. Yeah, I mean and

1:19:30landscape on the interior side a lot

1:19:33could still be a solution to supplement

1:19:35the landscape in front of the um

1:19:40even if at a um

1:19:44at the uh at the 4ft height, right? They

1:19:48could supplement that um to provide more

1:19:52of a safety factor as well.

1:19:55Um,

1:19:58so I feel like it's not their only

1:20:01option.

1:20:13Any more discussion? We ready for a

1:20:15motion?

1:20:19Yes.

1:20:28Just a question. We have to first

1:20:30So, we're first saying that

1:20:33the facts are here to even have a vote,

1:20:36right?

1:20:37>> Right. That the rehearing is warranted

1:20:39by some change in the the scope of the

1:20:42update.

1:20:42>> I'm assuming that's Yes. Then we go on

1:20:44to the five factors.

1:20:45>> Correct. Uh we could just look at it as

1:20:47like yeah kind of a prerequisite

1:20:50for the rest in that way. Um

1:20:53yeah,

1:21:04which the only requirement is that

1:21:06there's some kind of

1:21:08measurable change and they did reduce

1:21:11the height from 8 ft to 6 ft. So I think

1:21:13that's met.

1:21:14>> Yeah. Something that's a substantial

1:21:15material change. Not like you know we

1:21:18reduced it by an inch but

1:21:20>> something significant.

1:21:28>> Can you summarize what you heard?

1:21:31>> Sure.

1:21:32>> Thanks.

1:21:34Um

1:21:37he

1:21:44>> Avenue is is an M DOT road and the city

1:21:47does not have jurisdiction over it. The

1:21:50request is reducing the existing

1:21:52non-conforming fence. There are no v

1:21:56visibility concerns with pedestrians.

1:21:58The existing vegetation provides

1:22:00adequate screening.

1:22:02The topography of this site is lower

1:22:04than surrounding area.

1:22:07Uh the subject property has less

1:22:08vegetation than surrounding properties.

1:22:11The 45 mph zone is unique and this

1:22:15stretch of road of traffic is

1:22:17uninterrupted.

1:22:19Those were ones in support. And then one

1:22:23findings facts that were more of an

1:22:24opposed where surrounding properties uh

1:22:27meet the code currently. The property is

1:22:30not exceptional. The property is not

1:22:32unique and um this fence really doesn't

1:22:36fit the criteria of all the findings of

1:22:38facts and a 4ft tall 50%

1:22:42fence requirement is adequate.

1:23:02You can do it, Mike.

1:23:03>> You want me to go again?

1:23:04>> You can do [laughter] it. You're one for

1:23:05one.

1:23:06>> This is a rehearing. This is like very

1:23:08complex. All right. Um,

1:23:09>> we're going. I'll make a motion.

1:23:11>> Thank you, Mike.

1:23:12>> This is ZBA26-00008620

1:23:16Kernney Road. This is a reharing. Um, so

1:23:20the application for a re-haring

1:23:24shall be denied by the ZBA if the

1:23:25applicant is unable to present evidence

1:23:28to show that there has been a

1:23:29substantial change in facts,

1:23:31circumstances, or scope of nature relief

1:23:35nature of relief requested.

1:23:38And we're saying that the two-foot

1:23:41reduction

1:23:42is a substantial change in relief. So we

1:23:47are saying a re-haring should go

1:23:49forward.

1:23:51Um

1:23:53on to findings that there is practical

1:23:56difficulty that is exceptional and

1:23:58peculiar to the property and results

1:24:00from conditions that do not exist

1:24:01generally throughout the city. Uh this

1:24:04is a through lot that has a wash lot

1:24:07line that functions in practice as the

1:24:10resident's rear yard but is regulated as

1:24:12a front yard solely because it abuts a

1:24:15public street and that frontage borders

1:24:18an M do 45 mph arterial.

1:24:23Um the practical difficulty which will

1:24:26result from a failure to grant the

1:24:27variance includes substantially more

1:24:28than merit inconvenience andor inability

1:24:30to attain a higher financial return.

1:24:34finding a fact is that um you know a

1:24:38code compliant 4 foot 50% opaque fence

1:24:43um would leave the private rear yard

1:24:47area substantially more exposed to

1:24:50roadway conditions than a typical

1:24:51residential backyard.

1:24:55And so

1:24:58building the higher and more opaque

1:25:00fence is

1:25:04absorbing that um that peculiarity and

1:25:08and not a

1:25:11um

1:25:13that is exceptional peculiar to the

1:25:15property why they're building the higher

1:25:16fence.

1:25:20Allowing the variance will result in

1:25:22substantial justice being done

1:25:23considering the public benefits of the

1:25:25zoning ordinance, the practical

1:25:26difficulties that will be suffered by a

1:25:28failure to grant a variance and the

1:25:29rights of others whose property would be

1:25:31affected by allowing the variance.

1:25:33Finding effects here u the replacement

1:25:36would stay on the existing fence line

1:25:38would actually be 2 ft lower than the

1:25:41existing 8ft fence and we replace a

1:25:44deteriorating

1:25:45fence rather than creating a new

1:25:47frontage condition. And we have letters

1:25:49of support from neighbors on this um

1:25:54request.

1:25:58The conditions and circumstances of the

1:26:00proposed variants are not a self-imposed

1:26:02practical difficulty defining effects

1:26:04there. The applicants did not create the

1:26:06through lot configuration or the 45 mph

1:26:10M dot road environment. Um

1:26:15and again their current opaque fence of

1:26:188 ft predates their proposed replacement

1:26:23and then a variant shall be the minimum

1:26:25variance that will make possible a

1:26:26reasonable use of the lander structure.

1:26:28The finding effects there

1:26:31that

1:26:32the again the revised request reduces

1:26:36the fence from 8 to 6 ft which is the

1:26:39standard maximum height permitted in in

1:26:42residential side or rear yards

1:26:44throughout the city. Um

1:26:47and full opacity preserves the screening

1:26:50function of a longstanding barrier while

1:26:53lowering the height of that barrier.

1:26:58So,

1:27:00um,

1:27:02the zoning board appeals hereby grants a

1:27:05twoft and 50%

1:27:07variance from section 5.26.2B,

1:27:10table 5.26-1 26-1

1:27:13of the Unified Development Code to

1:27:15permit a 6-ft tall, 100%

1:27:18opaque fence within a front yard along

1:27:20Washington Avenue where 4T is the

1:27:22maximum height permitted and 50% is the

1:27:25maximum opacity permitted.

1:27:29>> We have a motion. Thank you, Mike.

1:27:30Support.

1:27:31>> Yes.

1:27:32>> Thank you, Patty.

1:27:36>> I vote yes. Mike,

1:27:38>> yes.

1:27:39>> Dharma,

1:27:40>> no.

1:27:42Drew,

1:27:42>> yes.

1:27:43>> Christina,

1:27:44>> no.

1:27:46>> Patty,

1:27:47>> yes.

1:27:48>> Roberta,

1:27:49>> yes.

1:27:50>> Julie,

1:27:51>> no.

1:27:52>> The request 1 2 3 4 5 is granted.

1:27:58>> Moving on to

1:28:02Hold on, I lost my agenda.

1:28:06petition ZBA26-0014709

1:28:11West Hon Street.

1:28:13>> Okay. So, I am going to just get us

1:28:16oriented to the location of the property

1:28:18uh via a few slides and I'm going to

1:28:20turn it over to our city planner who is

1:28:22with us tonight, Emma Burgerer, to

1:28:24present her staff report uh after that.

1:28:27So

1:28:29here we are with the uh zoning map

1:28:32showing the zoning of the subject

1:28:33property as well as the surrounding

1:28:35properties.

1:28:36And we have the aerial of the subject

1:28:39property as well as the surrounding

1:28:41properties.

1:28:43The zoomedin aerial of the subject

1:28:45property.

1:28:48And then here we have a uh survey that

1:28:52shows the location of the existing

1:28:54structure.

1:28:57And then we have a floor plan uh that is

1:29:00actually showing the proposed

1:29:03um use of the the basement uh which is

1:29:07kind of at the heart of this request

1:29:11um

1:29:12which the city planner can elaborate

1:29:14more on. I will turn it over to her.

1:29:19>> Thank you, Eric. Um Emma Berger, city

1:29:21planner.

1:29:23This is a request for a set two side

1:29:26setback variances um for property

1:29:29located at 709 West Hon. Um the property

1:29:33is currently zoned PUD planned unit

1:29:36development and the applicant has a

1:29:39petition to reszone um to the office

1:29:42zoning district that is um under review

1:29:44right now by the planning staff.

1:29:47Um a variance from side setbacks

1:29:50required in section 5.17.4

1:29:524 for the office zoning district is

1:29:54requested to allow a 5.1 ft west setback

1:29:58variance and a 4.4 ft east setback

1:30:01variance. The applicant um as I said has

1:30:04a resoning request in to reszone to

1:30:07office. The office zoning district

1:30:09requires a 30ft side and rear setback

1:30:11when the parcel is abuting a residential

1:30:14residential district which is why the

1:30:16two variances are requested.

1:30:18Um there is no proposed development and

1:30:21no proposed changes to the site layout.

1:30:23Um the applicant is seeking office

1:30:25zoning to allow for a mixed use of um

1:30:28office use and residential use in the

1:30:30existing building. Um applicant

1:30:33responses are included in the packet. Um

1:30:36and I'm happy to answer any questions.

1:30:39Thank you.

1:30:42Okay. So just to clarify this, they're

1:30:45not changing anything on the site.

1:30:47They're not adding anything to the

1:30:49building, but they're reszoning the

1:30:52property. So, there's different setback

1:30:54requirements. So, they need the

1:30:55variances so the existing building can

1:30:57comply with the new setback.

1:30:59>> New zoning district.

1:31:00>> Correct.

1:31:00>> And also permit residential use of the

1:31:02property, which is not currently

1:31:04permitted.

1:31:04>> Yep. The PUD.

1:31:06>> Sure. Yeah. The PUD. So, that was

1:31:08office. Um, inside the building, there's

1:31:11office on the upper two floors, I

1:31:12believe, and the basement um will be

1:31:14where the two um I think one-bedroom

1:31:17residential units will be.

1:31:18>> Okay.

1:31:19>> Yep.

1:31:20>> So, just to ask one more clarifying

1:31:23question, it's going from just like a

1:31:25business or um office to office and

1:31:28residential, right?

1:31:29>> That will be the uses. Yes. Okay.

1:31:31Thanks.

1:31:33>> Any other questions for staff?

1:31:37All right. If the petitioner's here,

1:31:38please come forward, sign and state your

1:31:40name for the record. We You'll have five

1:31:42minutes.

1:31:43Hello, Deborah Rashy, homeowner. Um,

1:31:47Emma did a great job of explaining what

1:31:48this is about. It's basically an office

1:31:51building that's been an office building

1:31:53since at least the 1980s.

1:31:56Um, and kind of the impetus for this was

1:31:59a burst pipe that happened in March in

1:32:01the basement that required us to have to

1:32:03tear up the floor and do some other work

1:32:05down there. And at that time, um, the

1:32:08basement area is like a full almost

1:32:10daylight basement already. And this has

1:32:12been used as a it was actually a

1:32:14boarding house in the 1970s. So, it has

1:32:16been residential before and it had but

1:32:19it's been commercial for quite a while.

1:32:21Um, so since that basement space really

1:32:23wasn't being utilized and we had the

1:32:25opportunity with this burst pipe to kind

1:32:28of relook at the space, we decided to

1:32:30try to add some residential units, a

1:32:33couple of apartments that can be rented

1:32:34in that area. So I'm working with um

1:32:37planning now to reszone that from the

1:32:40PUD to an office which would allow for

1:32:42multi- for use of office and um the

1:32:45rental properties in the basement.

1:32:49And I have done as far as neighbors are

1:32:52concerned to uh the west of me is

1:32:55another um building very similar to this

1:32:58that is all apartments built broken into

1:33:01apartments. And then the other side of

1:33:03me is um a similar home that is used for

1:33:07all office space for professionals.

1:33:09Across the street is a dermatology

1:33:11office. Behind me are residential

1:33:14houses. Um,

1:33:16that's kind of the layout of where I'm

1:33:19where I'm at. And I guess that's it.

1:33:22There's not really any development

1:33:23happening here other than what's in the

1:33:25existing walls. I'm not adding anything

1:33:27to the existing site.

1:33:31>> Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the

1:33:33petitioner?

1:33:38>> All right. Thank you very much. Um, I

1:33:40don't see anyone here, but if there is

1:33:42anyone from the public who wishes to

1:33:43speak on this petition, now is your

1:33:45opportunity to do so. Please press star

1:33:479 or use the raise hand button.

1:33:50>> There are no callers at this time.

1:33:52>> Thank you, John. With that, the public

1:33:54hearing is closed and we are in

1:33:56discussion.

1:34:00>> So, the zoning district will be then

1:34:02consistent on both wings of the um of

1:34:06the current property. If this passes,

1:34:10>> you mean in terms of consistency with

1:34:12the adjoining lots?

1:34:13>> Yes.

1:34:14>> I believe it will be a different zoning

1:34:15classification than the adjoining lots

1:34:17which are a multi-

1:34:20family class.

1:34:21>> Yeah. Is this a PUB

1:34:23>> or yes to the west? What is the current

1:34:26um zoning? Is it

1:34:28>> I think it's R4 R4C.

1:34:31>> It's multif family and to the east

1:34:34>> also R4C. Okay. Okay. And then to the

1:34:36south it's residential

1:34:38>> R2 I believe.

1:34:39>> Y

1:34:40>> and then to the north is the office. So

1:34:41>> yeah directly across the street is the

1:34:43existing office district.

1:34:46>> So once a PUD it's always a PUD

1:34:49>> until it's reszone.

1:34:52>> Yeah. Right.

1:34:53>> Well it's one way. There are other ways

1:34:55to to dissolve a PUD but

1:34:57>> Yeah. Okay.

1:35:18This one seems pretty straightforward to

1:35:19me. Agree. They're

1:35:21>> not changing anything on the outside of

1:35:23the building. It's just kind of a

1:35:25technicality through the resoning that

1:35:27they need a variance to make the

1:35:29existing structure conform. So,

1:35:32um, yeah,

1:35:37>> let's do a mic.

1:35:38>> Yeah, I've got I'm going to use Eric's

1:35:41one of your findings.

1:35:42>> Yeah, I would point out that our

1:35:43findings are um

1:35:46kind of the the staff suggested findings

1:35:48are worded in terms of a verbal in this

1:35:51particular case. They all

1:35:53>> they all would be met as uh suggested.

1:35:56>> Yeah, please.

1:35:57>> Yep. Um, all right. I will

1:36:01make the motion. This is ZBA26-001479

1:36:05West Heron Street.

1:36:08Based on the following findings of fact,

1:36:10there is practical difficulty that is

1:36:12exceptional and peculiar to the property

1:36:15and results from conditions that do not

1:36:16exist generally throughout the city. The

1:36:18finding that the subject property is

1:36:21subject to a planned unit development

1:36:23that prohibits residential use of a

1:36:25property that was historically used for

1:36:27residential purposes.

1:36:29The practical difficulty which will

1:36:31result from a failure to grant the

1:36:32variance includes substantially more

1:36:34than mere inconvenience and/or inability

1:36:36to attain a higher financial return. The

1:36:38finding is that the subject property was

1:36:40designed and historically used for

1:36:41residential purposes.

1:36:44Allowing the variance will result in

1:36:45substantial justice being done

1:36:46considering the public benefits of the

1:36:48zoning ordinance, the practical

1:36:49difficulties that will be suffered by a

1:36:51failure to grant a variance, and the

1:36:53rights of others whose property would be

1:36:54affected by allowing the variance.

1:36:57The finding is that the subject variance

1:37:00will not significantly alter the

1:37:02neighborhood as the proposed use is

1:37:04residential where residential use is

1:37:06very common in the vicinity of the

1:37:09subject property.

1:37:11The conditions and circumstances of the

1:37:13proposed variance are not a self-imposed

1:37:15practical difficulty. The finding is

1:37:17that the conditions and circumstances of

1:37:19the proposed variance are not

1:37:20self-imposed because the existing

1:37:22property or excuse me the existing

1:37:23building on the subject of property

1:37:26which was constructed in 1865 predates

1:37:28the unified development code which was

1:37:30adopted in 2018

1:37:32>> just a couple years

1:37:33>> just a few years. Finally, [laughter]

1:37:35a variance shall be the minimum variance

1:37:38that will make possible a reasonable use

1:37:40of the land or structure. Finding is

1:37:42that the subject variance does not

1:37:43change the existing setback dimensions

1:37:45and will permit residential use of a

1:37:48property that was designed and again

1:37:49historically used for residential

1:37:51purposes. So, in accordance with the

1:37:53established standards for approval, the

1:37:54zoning board of appeals hereby grants a

1:37:565.1 ft and 4.4 4 foot variance from

1:38:00table 5.17-4

1:38:03of the unified development code to

1:38:04permit an existing office building to

1:38:07have a 24.9

1:38:09ft west side setback and 25.6

1:38:13ft east side setback where 30 ft is the

1:38:17minimum setback required for each side.

1:38:20>> Thank you, Mike. We have a motion. Do we

1:38:22have support? Support.

1:38:24>> Thank you,

1:38:27Patty.

1:38:28>> Yes.

1:38:30Roberta,

1:38:30>> yes. Julie,

1:38:32>> yes.

1:38:34>> I vote yes. Mike,

1:38:36>> yes.

1:38:37>> Dharma,

1:38:38>> yes.

1:38:39>> Drew,

1:38:40>> yes.

1:38:41>> Christina,

1:38:41>> yes.

1:38:42>> The request is granted.

1:38:45Moving on to unfinished business. We

1:38:47have none. New business. Reports from

1:38:50council. Dharma.

1:38:52>> I don't think I have anything. Thanks.

1:38:55>> All right, that was easy.

1:38:58Um, city council policy agenda.

1:39:03>> Eric, do you want to explain to everyone

1:39:04what that is?

1:39:05>> A little explanation on this item. So,

1:39:07um, this is basically kind of a call to

1:39:10the city's boards and commissions to

1:39:11have input on the council policy agenda.

1:39:15Uh, you would see a similar agenda item

1:39:17on other boards and commissions uh,

1:39:19agendas. um just basically asking for

1:39:23anything that the board is prioritizing

1:39:26um you know that might take legislative

1:39:28action to to make a reality. Um

1:39:32certainly looking at things that are

1:39:33kind of within the purview of this

1:39:35particular board. Um you know not

1:39:37general policy positions but more things

1:39:40that would stem from you know an appeals

1:39:42board the the kind of realm of zoning um

1:39:46that you would want council to know

1:39:47would be a high priority for this board.

1:39:51I think reclaiming roads from MD dot

1:39:54[laughter]

1:39:57>> which I think is already on the

1:39:59>> I think it's already on there. Yeah.

1:40:02>> Oh yeah. Wall signs.

1:40:05>> But that's Can I just ask a clarifying

1:40:07question?

1:40:08>> So I think this is intended to be the

1:40:11priorities that the city uses to lobby

1:40:14our state representatives for any change

1:40:16in law. Is that what you're talking

1:40:17about? I believe it would be the um

1:40:22essentially for council's legislative

1:40:24priorities, not states necessarily is my

1:40:26understanding.

1:40:27>> Okay. Because we have a separate policy

1:40:28priorities that's like about what we

1:40:30want to lobby the state for. So Okay.

1:40:33Yeah. I think signs are to me I'd like

1:40:36us to do something about that.

1:40:38>> Yeah.

1:40:39>> Wall signs be able to go higher.

1:40:41>> Uh the Yeah. The good news

1:40:42>> all the way to the top, Mike.

1:40:44>> Yes. We we have a draft ordinance uh

1:40:47that's that's in the works right now for

1:40:49that because we've consistently kind of

1:40:50heard this feedback from the board um

1:40:52that we would expect to introduce maybe

1:40:54sometime in here in October or November

1:40:56uh to the planning commission to kind of

1:40:58start the uh the approval process. Um

1:41:02kind of looked at the numbers on that

1:41:04one in particular and it it's a very

1:41:06large portion of variances. They're all

1:41:09in specific geographic areas, mainly the

1:41:11more suburban development pattern uh

1:41:14areas of the city where, you know, you

1:41:16have big box stores and and things of

1:41:18that nature. Um there's a little bit of

1:41:20a mixed record in terms of approval or

1:41:22denial in those areas, but uh with the

1:41:26um

1:41:28the board has actually not approved one

1:41:30for a new construction either. It's it's

1:41:33just existing

1:41:34>> existing buildings

1:41:34>> buildings that generally are seeing the

1:41:37the denials on this particular issue.

1:41:45>> You know what I think that was

1:41:50you're right it wasn't even yeah that

1:41:52would be an example of one that was uh

1:41:55although they had one side that actually

1:41:57met the requirement and the other

1:41:59didn't. So, it was a little bit unique

1:42:01in that way, too, and that it was kind

1:42:02of a two-sided

1:42:04situation,

1:42:14the UDC rewrite, because I think there

1:42:17are a lot of things that come to our I

1:42:19mean, I expect that there's going to be

1:42:20a lot of changes just in general to

1:42:23setbacks and things like that that

1:42:26influences this board. So,

1:42:28>> I mean, I know it's already a priority,

1:42:30but

1:42:31>> doesn't hurt to put our

1:42:34>> Yeah. [laughter]

1:42:42Any other items anybody wants to add to

1:42:44the list?

1:42:48All right.

1:42:51Um, communications. Oh, yep.

1:43:00Yeah.

1:43:02>> Well,

1:43:05>> yeah.

1:43:07>> So, to clarify, you were talking the

1:43:10minimum.

1:43:11>> No, sizes.

1:43:13>> Lot sizes.

1:43:16>> Yeah.

1:43:20>> Exactly. M

1:43:27>> that's true. Yeah. The land divisions

1:43:28that are like 100 square feet short of

1:43:31>> Yeah. And that'll be part of

1:43:33>> the UDC changes. Yeah.

1:43:45>> All right. Good feedback.

1:43:48Um communications. So, I think we noted

1:43:50everything that we received. So, public

1:43:53comment, if there's anyone from this

1:43:55huge audience that wishes to speak to

1:43:57the ZBA, now is your chance. Um, if

1:44:00you're online, please press star 9 or

1:44:02use the raise hand button.

1:44:04>> No callers.

1:44:06>> Thank you, John. Uh, do I have a motion

1:44:08to adjurnn?

1:44:10Thank you, Roberta. Support. Thank you,

1:44:14Patty. All in favor say I. I.

1:44:16>> Opposed. We are adjourned. Thanks,

1:44:18everyone.